|
By now everyone's sick to death of all that "Apple cheated on the G5 benchmarks" / "No they didn't" hoo-haa. (Well, everyone but The Register, apparently; faithful viewer David Poves notes that they appear to be reporting on the original Apple-published benchmarks now, despite the fact that those numbers have been around since June. Let's do the Time Warp again!) Our final word on the subject was essentially that everyone should wait until the real, honest-to-Steveness production G5s hit the streets, and then we'd all see some real performance tests start to emerge. Well, guess what? The G5s are a-hittin' and the tests results are emergin'. Unfortunately, at first glance, they aren't exactly the sort of numbers to swoon over.
Let's say you flat-out ignored the first public batch of owner benchmarks, which surfaced last week over at Mac Rumors, on the grounds that they showed the G5's XBench scores barely edging out the G4's-- even after XBench had been tuned for improved G5 performance-- and therefore "couldn't be right." Okay, fine. So you decided to wait for a reasonable real-world benchmark, preferably a cross-platform one that was optimized for every processor on which it was run. Sounds like Photoshop to us! And guess what? Mac Rumors now has preliminary PS7Bench results for the G5 as well. If you're expecting to get blown away, though, it might be best if you turn away now. We hate seeing looks of disappointment.
Don't get us wrong-- the results are okay, they just aren't astounding. A handy table of all results is available at Chaosmint.com, and while the G5 turns in some pretty respectable times, it just doesn't mop the floor with the other chips as Apple would have us believe. The G5 beat out all the x86 reference systems in only 5 out of 21 tests; the 3.06 GHz Pentium 4 won 10 of the races. Granted, that doesn't mean much, so we added the times together and found that the G5 appears to have placed second to last out of seven systems, taking 180.1 seconds to complete the test battery, and finishing well behind (among other things) a 3.06 GHz Pentium 4 (124.6 seconds), a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 (155.7) and an Athlon 2700+ (151.4).
There is a bright side, however, which is that the tested G5 was a 1.6 GHz model-- the entry-level Power Mac. Unfortunately, there's also a dark side to the bright side, which is that you can't spit without hitting a Wintel system with, say, a 2.8 GHz P4 that costs less than that entry-level Power Mac-- and that's with a 17-inch LCD display. On the lower end, at least, it's starting to look like the G5 isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. Ultimately, yes, benchmarks are artificial, but there's also anecdotal testimony floating around, like the words of a reseller quoted over at Accelerate Your Macintosh! who "can't say [he] see[s] a marked improvement in performance."
Our hope is that the dual 2.0 GHz G5 will show a clear performance lead at the top end, and that upcoming G5 optimizations in Panther and future releases of Photoshop only extend the G5's lead even further. Right now, though, we're definitely a little underwhelmed with the first sets of G5 benchmarks making the rounds. Perhaps the tester had the secret red toggle switch on the motherboard flipped to "SLOW"?
| |